Allegations of widespread sexual exploitation of Calais migrants by British volunteers

[Manter]

What's also risky is people who are themselves emotionally vulnerable working with vulnerable people without recognising that they themselves are vulnerable because after all they're helping the vulnerable. Which is why I brought in a professional situation as an example of what kinds of structures people should have around them so that they are less likely to confuse their own vulnerability and neediness for that of someone else. Unfortunately most people in professional health and social care organisations don't have these support structures either, the method is ensuring compliance to codes of ethics rather than self-understanding; both are needed IMO but that kind of structure is expensive.

Also impossible in an environment like Calais.

 

[Red Cat]

Also impossible in an environment like Calais.

My earlier post suggested how complex this is even when you have systems of support or reflective spaces or whatever. My point was that ethical codes aren't sufficient to govern human need, so just saying this or that is inappropriate, is, well, inappropriate for the task at hand, really.

 

[DrRingDing]

yeh but just cos no one's said it's appropriate try walking a hundred yards in ringding's shoes etc spluttery nonsense

Did no guilty white liberal do-gooders want to take advantage of you? (((Pickers)))

 

[Treacle Toes]

Did no guilty white liberal do-gooders want to take advantage of you? (((Pickers)))

Is that how you characterise people who have or are currently part of the voluntary aid effort in illegal encampments like Calais? Or just the ones that engage in sexual relationships with the residents of those camps?

 

[Pickman's model]

Did no guilty white liberal do-gooders want to take advantage of you? (((Pickers)))

You're the only guilty white liberal do-gooder here.

 

[DrRingDing]

You're the only guilty white liberal do-gooder here.

Only in your fave wank fantasies.

 

[Wilf]

DR R, have you come across anybody on this thread who isn't critical of relationships between activists and refugees in the camps?

 

[Pickman's model]

Only in your fave wank fantasies.

Class. Bollocks, but it shows the sort of sordid guilty white liberal you are.

 

[DrRingDing]

Class. Bollocks, but it shows the sort of sordid guilty white liberal you ate.

Liberals are too fatty for my refined palate.

 

[Sue]

The thread that keeps on giving.

 

[Pickman's model]

The thread that keeps on giving.

Yeh. When you see ringding posting about wank fantasies it gives nausea.

 

[Red Cat]

Did no guilty white liberal do-gooders want to take advantage of you? (((Pickers)))

So, if you insist on this theme, unpack that then. What do you mean by liberal do-gooder?

Do you make a distinction between say a social worker and an activist? Is the social worker safe from causing harm in your view because they are a professional? Or not. Is it sanction that makes a difference? What is it that causes harm? That prevents harm?

Tell us.

 

[existentialist]

So, if you insist on this theme, unpack that then. What do you mean by liberal do-gooder?

Do you make a distinction between say a social worker and an activist? Is the social worker safe from causing harm in your view because they are a professional? Or not. Is it sanction that makes a difference? What is it that causes harm? That prevents harm?

Tell us.

They're only "do gooders" when what they are doing doesn't met with the good Dr's approval.

 

[Pickman's model]

They're only "do gooders" when what they are doing doesn't met with the good Dr's approval.

Between you and me he isn't a Dr.

 

[existentialist]

Between you and me he isn't a Dr.

No! Say it isn't so!!

 

[andysays]

 

[Wilf]

Between you and me he isn't a Dr.

Is this another 'Dr' Jazzz moment? Feet of clay, no more heroes.

 

[Pickman's model]

Is this another 'Dr' Jazzz moment? Feet of clay, no more heroes.

no more icepicks

 

[two sheds]

Now that that’s all cleared up I’ll have one more go at asking Athos what he meant.

I started by saying that we need to acknowledge the causes of why there are so many refugees, and was accused of trying to blame the working class and make them feel guilty about it. I said that no I wasn’t doing that because it’s not working people who make those sorts of decisions. Seemed fairly uncontroversial to me.

I don't think the solution is that it's "down to governments to make changes." Nor do I accept that "they're the ones who make the decisions."

I don’t know what you’re referring to, but it wasn’t the working class who (for example) invaded Iraq. It was the government that decided. That’s the tragedy of the system we have now – working people don’t get to decide, but have to live with the consequences.

Working people can’t invest the huge amount of money it needs to build houses and create jobs for people. In the system we have now, that’s down to government.

And one more go at investment. I’ve been fairly clear above on what I consider investment to be, but to spell it out. The definition I was using is, from Oxford online:

An act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result.

You have one or more people who invest money (actually time and effort) in a project so that they or others gain some benefit – often but not always money as profit – in the future. The benefit gained normally greatly outweighs the time and effort invested.

Or at least that’s what I’ve meant when I’ve used the term over the last 30 years talking about energy efficiency, and it translates well to providing jobs and building houses – as I remarked referring to Corbyn’s plan to use peoples’ quantitative easing to finance the public works he’s planning.

Now, you’ve made the claim that I don’t understand investment. Please say why.

 

[Athos]

Now that that’s all cleared up I’ll have one more go at asking Athos what he meant.

I started by saying that we need to acknowledge the causes of why there are so many refugees, and was accused of trying to blame the working class and make them feel guilty about it. I said that no I wasn’t doing that because it’s not working people who make those sorts of decisions. Seemed fairly uncontroversial to me.



I don’t know what you’re referring to, but it wasn’t the working class who (for example) invaded Iraq. It was the government that decided. That’s the tragedy of the system we have now – working people don’t get to decide, but have to live with the consequences.

Working people can’t invest the huge amount of money it needs to build houses and create jobs for people. In the system we have now, that’s down to government.

And one more go at investment. I’ve been fairly clear above on what I consider investment to be, but to spell it out. The definition I was using is, from Oxford online:



You have one or more people who invest money (actually time and effort) in a project so that they or others gain some benefit – often but not always money as profit – in the future. The benefit gained normally greatly outweighs the time and effort invested.

Or at least that’s what I’ve meant when I’ve used the term over the last 30 years talking about energy efficiency, and it translates well to providing jobs and building houses – as I remarked referring to Corbyn’s plan to use peoples’ quantitative easing to finance the public works he’s planning.

Now, you’ve made the claim that I don’t understand investment. Please say why.

You seem to deny the agency of the working class. What class were the soldiers who went into Iraq, do you think?

Your concept of investment mentions money in one paragraph, then excludes it from the definition!

Everything you say presumes the status quo is natural and inevitable.

 

[two sheds]

You seem to deny the agency of the working class. What class were the soldiers who went into Iraq, do you think?

What does my statement "That’s the tragedy of the system we have now – working people don’t get to decide, but have to live with the consequences" mean, do you think?

Ironic - you're saying that I'm blaming the working class, but now you're blaming them for invading Iraq.

Your concept of investment mentions money in one paragraph, then excludes it from the definition!

That's the Oxford definition. Obviously you may need money to pay for someone's time, effort and energy.

So how did my statements above show that I don't understand what investment means?

Everything you say presumes the status quo is natural and inevitable.

No it doesn't. I'm describing the situation that we have now. Since that's the situation ... we have now.

 

[Athos]

What does my statement "That’s the tragedy of the system we have now – working people don’t get to decide, but have to live with the consequences" mean, do you think?

Ironic - you're saying that I'm blaming the working class, but now you're blaming them for invading Iraq.



That's the Oxford definition. Obviously you may need money to pay for someone's time, effort and energy.

So how did my statements above show that I don't understand what investment means?

No it doesn't. I'm describing the situation that we have now. Since that's the situation ... we have now.

Could those men and women have refused to fight? Are there historical examples of that? Why are you so keen to deny the agency of working class people? And how do you think that colours your perception of the possible solutions to, say, the housing crisis?

Those who own the wealth necessary to build these houses, and those with the power to make such spending decisions, have interests which are aligned. Explain how those interests are furthered by building houses for the poor, such that they would consider it an 'investment.' And explain how those interests can be divorced in neoliberalism/capitalism.

You say that you may need money to pay for someone's time and energy. What are the alternatives? Have human beings ever built houses without being paid?

Do you think the fact we have that system means we have to look for a solution inside it?

 

[two sheds]

Could those men and women have refused to fight? Are there historical examples of that?

Where did I suggest that they could have done? That's precisely why I said it's not their responsibility it's a government decision.

Which you disagreed with.

Why are you so keen to deny the agency of working class people?

What are you talking about? By that argument you've just denied the agency of working class people yourself by saying that they had no choice but to fight.

You're inventing shit just to have an argument.

And how do you think that colours your perception of the possible solutions to, say, the housing crisis?

I'm saying that *under the present system* we need something like the PWSC again. The working class can't build all the houses we need without being given the money (paid time and resources) to do it. How's that denying the agency of the working class? It's a simple statement of fact.

Those who own the wealth necessary to build these houses, and those with the power to make such spending decisions, have interests which are aligned. Explained how those interests are furthered by building houses for the poor, such that they would consider it an 'investment.' And explain how those interests can be divorced in neoliberalism/capitalism.

Where have I suggested anything different? I've specifically said that they're not doing it, that's why I like Corbyn's policy because he says he *will* do it.

Incidentally, you're using "investment" in exactly the same way I used "investment" and which you said showed that I don't understand the word "investment".

You say that you may need money to pay for someone's time and energy. What are the alternatives?

Again, what are you talking about? Where have I suggested that? I was just pointing out that you may need money to pay for someone's time and energy.

You're saying exactly what I've said, only pretending that I've said the opposite.

Have human beings ever built houses without being paid?

Well yes it used to be quite common for families and friends to get together to build a house. As you'd know if you were the educated socialist you're pretending to be. It's not all that relevant here, though.

Do you think the fact we have that system means we have to look for a solution inside it?

Pretentious nonsense. Tell me, then, what's the "solution" to the problem we have of the government not making the investments to build enough houses? Practical solution that means that all the houses get built, say in the next couple of years. A solution that doesn't call on Harry Potter.

I make simple statements of what I see the problem we face now to be and you adopt this pretentious lecturing tone to pretend I've not understood some deep socialist principle.

Of course I know the government doesn't care about the problem - that's exactly what I'm fucking saying.

 

[Athos]

It seems ridiculous - on a theoretical level, and in light of the evidence - to suggest that, in order to solve the problems of inequality, working class people should look to neoliberal governments within a capitalist mode of production. Especially when that position is based on liberal woolly-mindedness and sentimentality which overlooks any analysis of class interests, such that it confuses investment with altruism.

What are you talking about? By that argument you've just denied the agency of working class people yourself by saying that they had no choice but to fight.

Way to miss the point, again! I didn't say they had no choice. I asked you whether they did. It's it your position that they didn't, then? If so, how do you reconcile that with others who exercised their agency not fight in that and many other conflicts?

Fuck it, I just can't be bothered to go through the rest of this nonsense line by line. Sorry.

 

[Athos]

The working class can't build all the houses we need without being given the money (paid time and resources) to do it.... It's a simple statement of fact.

Wow.

 

[two sheds]

It seems ridiculous - on a theoretical level, and in light of the evidence - to suggest that, in order to solve the problems of inequality, working class people should look to neoliberal governments within a capitalist mode of production. Especially when that position is based on liberal woolly-mindedness and sentimentality which overlooks any analysis of class interests, such that it confuses investment with altruism.

Crap. The specific problem I was referring to was the lack of investment to build houses. Houses like governments of both sides built under the PWSC. I'm not suggesting anything wider than that.

Way to miss the point, again! I didn't say they had no choice. I asked you whether they did. It's it your position that they didn't, then? If so, how do you reconcile that with others above received their agency not fight in that and many other conflicts?

No I don't think that most of the working class people had a realistic choice. You're saying that working class people were responsible for the Iraq war because they could have chosen not to fight? Fuck me, some socialist you are.

Fuck it, I just can't be bothered to go through the rest of this nonsense line by line. Sorry.

No, I'm sure you can't

 

[Pickman's model]

two sheds you might like to remind yourself of the famous durruti quote about not being afraid of ruins.

 

[Athos]

Crap. The specific problem I was referring to was the lack of investment to build houses. Houses like governments of both sides built under the PWSC. I'm not suggesting anything wider than that.



No I don't think that most of the working class people had a realistic choice. You're saying that working class people were responsible for the Iraq war because they could have chosen not to fight? Fuck me, some socialist you are.



No, I'm sure you can't

I know it is rude and arrogant, but there's no value for me in continuing this discussion. I don't think you have the minimal understanding of even the most basic principles, nor the ability or desire to try to understand them, sufficient to make it fruitful. Sorry.

 

[two sheds]

two sheds you might like to remind yourself of the famous durruti quote about not being afraid of ruins.

Yes, indeed. If land and materials were free and there were no planning regulations, the working class could do it all. No argument. In a socialist society they could do this easily. But we don't have a socialist society we have the neocon bunch of shits that we do have. I'm not making some philosophical statement, just remarking on the specific problem with the specific governments we have.

Why haven't the working class in the last few years in the UK built the homes that we need? Because they've not been given the paid time and resources they need to do it (as they were in the PWSC).

 

[two sheds]

I know it is rude and arrogant, but there's no value for me in continuing this discussion. I don't think you have the minimal understanding of even the most basic principles, nor the ability or desire to try to understand them, sufficient to make it fruitful. Sorry.

Jesus Christ. I've not noticed you being such a pretentious twat before this thread, thanks for the alert.

You don't even seem to understand the word "investment"